The quest for more efficient construction dispute resolution has prompted maj or policy decisions in relation to the use of ADR. This paper presents a comparison of the construction dispute handling approaches in five common law based jurisdictions: Australia, Hong Kong, New Zealand Singapore and the United Kingdom. Based on a literature review, it is found that the right to refer construction disputes (of any type) to adjudication is supported by statute in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. In contrast, in Australia and Singapore, only payment-related disputes are singled out for statutory adjudication. In Hong Kong, while the use of ADR techniques remains voluntary, mediation is the preferred choice. Four reasons that may have led the above differences are suggested. They are: (1) the contracting parties' right to employ ADR techniques, (2) the consensus to champion statutory adjudication, (3) the scope of legislation and (4) the ambition to achieve final settlement through the use of ADR.
展开▼
